Transcript Slide 1
RTI: The Central Role of Instruction in NCLB and IDEA Joseph Witt, PhD NCLB and IDEA are Merging Foundation is good practices in general education Eligibility determination in special education cannot be based on a lack of appropriate instruction in general education Comes Together in – 3 Tiered Model Responsiveness to Intervention Model Level IV HIGH Special Education IEP Determination Intensity of Treatment Level III LOW Intensive Interventions Level II Selected Interventions Level I Universal Interventions Degree of Unresponsiveness to Intervention HIGH Kalisha: New Way and Old Way Current Grade Placement=5th Current Reading Level=3rd A Discrepancy Does Exist but Why? The Discrepancy between Actual and Expected 5 4 Grade Level 3 2 1 0 Current Expected Functioning Functioning Expected vs. Current Grade Level Two Approaches Assume problem resides within child and search for problem – Learning Disability Assume FIRST problem is with instruction – every child can learn given the right strategies Current System Kalisha is Referred Tested – Woodcocked – WISC—ered Voila – Severe Discrepancy – Diagnosis: LD – Placement in Special Education Discrepancy Explained: Kalisha has LD! Kalisha goes off to Special Education The Classroom Teacher Returns to Normal Routines School Based Team is Happy – Something has been done about Kalisha Why Consider a Change in IDEA to RTI Why Change Disability designation and hall passes LD placements up in US astronomically Increase not a problem IF Students do Well in SPED – Outcomes for SPED Students Poor Could All Those New Placements Really be LD? Is there a new LD epidemic If not, what could explain the large increases in LD placement? LD Epidemic Mystery Solved Scientists have Discovered that often the student has merely not been instructed --ABT – Was teacher “highly qualified” – Did reading instruction include “essential components of reading” – Was reading instruction “evidenced based” – Did instruction occur consistently Duh~ Now with NCLB: Onus on District to Show ProgressNot Blame Student 4 Expected Why is Student Low 2 Actual 0 Are progress data available showing most students are successful? Are all subgroups successful? If not how can you say any one child is LD They have not had a chance to learn. How Do you KNOW Core instruction is working within RTI Which students need help STEEP Example RTI: Lots of “Moving” Parts Screen ALL Students Begin Intervention for Some Monitor Progress Make Changes if Needed Schools Need Tech Assistance – Who will do these new Jobs – How do you do them Universal Screening— Sounds Like Too Much Work STEEP – Reading—One Minute Individual Screening – Math—Group Screening – Can’t Do or Won’t Do Most Schools Can Be Screened in a Day Results returned to teachers that day How Does it Work? First, All Children in the school are screened in reading and math – Using BRIEF classroom based tests—CBM Next, Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment – Is problem skill or motivation Many students in the red zone. The team should consider group or classwide interventions rather than referring one student at a time. Core Curriculum Problems Won’t Do Problem Lack of Motivation is NOT a Disability Can’t Do Problem Needs Instructional Intervention “Filters” Increase Accuracy of Referrals Many Children Are Screened Few Individual Concerns Fewer Nonresponders Even Less Require Full Evaluation Positive Outcomes Biloxi, MS – Referrals in two schools from 1999-2003 40 Total Per Year – Referrals 2004-2005 1 Total – Why? School Psycs and Speech Paths with Graphs—modeling interventions Vail Arizona – Multiple Baseline Across Schools 30-50% Reduction in Referrals – Why? Focus on Core Curriculum—TEACHERS!! Determining Lack of Instruction: Many students not Learning at Tier 1 Grade Level Standard The Sore Thumb Test Kalisha in Red Seems to be a Problem Progress Monitoring in General ED a MUST Inquiring minds want to know, how did Kalisha get behind in the first place Did this happen gradually? Why wasn’t something done sooner Asleep at the Wheel? Progress for Subgroups? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 White Af Am Hispanic Other Why Place Hispanic Students—Core not Working Will this be known in future? What Should you Do if Core Curriculum is a Problem Options – Classwide Intervention – Large Group – Most students will respond 0 Breaux Aisha S Chapdelain Lily M Robb Sydney M Mangione Nikole M White Bailey V Ramey Sara B Littsen Lucas R Foxhoven Shane A Gonzales Audryana Foley Thomas J Hermes Jay M Thueson Lila D Svob Seth H Salsbury Mariah A Wills Donna D Blakeley Brandee E Kellogg Anthony S Negrete Sara M Ashton Julia E Dailey Brandon L Showers Phillip J Counes James G Hilkemeyer Austin R Howe Ashley B Strider Katie N Santa cruz Daniel R Gallego Angela M Lewandowski Sisk Cody A Forsyth Ian E Blake Nicholas K Hatch Vanessa L Machain Anthony F Peterson Tyler L White Alexa L Nutbrown Jordan C Bluemke Megan J Casamasa Gregory L Roche Alyssa R Elias Elizabeth L Beeston Kristine D Lopez Theresa A Pierce Shannon M Lanier Matthew W Nanna Caitlin N Smith Shelby N Iturralde Jacqueline R Mcharg Jordan E Brechbiel Shari L Cota Alexia K Jackson Damion M Lamadrid Leonardo Oliver Riley W Layton Marissa M Mueller Lane E Turner Alana K Rowlan Paige E Dumes Scott M Riordan Timothy D Hicks Coltin C Kenton Chelsee M Cornwell Kimberly M Crater Shelbie M Rytting Ryan C French Joshua M Davila Ariel N Thompson Tasha N Ryckman Shelby L Ayers Megan L Dunham Clayton J Mausert James R Morales Eric A Bain Bryce G Gryczkowski samluk Cuff Matthew J Hackman Lindsey S Whitlock John C Benson Brad J Stanfield Benjamin C Martinez Nathaniel P Carrizosa Robert A Webb Brianna J Evans Joseph B Laye Lestot D Bazzanella Stephen L Crowl Robert S Thompson Krysta E Tipton Emily N Meyer Sean M Couture Anne S Gibbons Cody D Fuhrman Autum C Nolen Jayd L Drake Justin T Neale Shaine R Purcell John E Rugotska Colton J Bong Samantha L Johnson Amanda L Rodriguez Ryan T Bergstrom Matthew A Pannell Marina S Digits Correct Two Minutes STEEP Screening Identified School Wide Math Deficits in Arizona School Grade 4 120 100 Green Zone 80 60 Yellow Zone 40 20 Red Zone Each bar is a student’s performance Math problems grades 3-5 0 Neale Frost Joshua Franklin Ryckman Turner Alana Ayers Smith Montano Kenton Banken Mausert White Alexa Brechbiel Hatch Meyer Sean Santa cruz Oliver Riley Cornwell Wills Donna Bluemke Williams Cuff Matthew Nanna Hilkemeyer Robb Gryczkowski Gonzales Mangione Foxhoven Layton Negrete Tipton Emily Gavino Lamb Nicole Chapdelain Roche Digits Correct Two Minutes After School Wide Intervention--No Systemic Problem Fourth Grade Fourth Grade Multiplication 0-9 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Importantly: Significant Improvements in SAT-9 Data SAT-9 Standard Scores and t-test Results for Pre- and Post-Implementation Years by Grade 2001-2002 Grade n Third 85 Fourth M 2002-2003 t SD n M SD 562.06 143.80 129 602.54 35.20 3.07** 116 611.09 120.61 117 638.22 33.39 2.35* Fifth 113 636.73 109.86 107 659.17 35.77 2.01* Total 314 607.04 126.83 353 631.53 41.93 3.42** * p < .05 ** p < .01 Cohen’s d (effect size between years) Third .45 Fourth .35 Fifth .31 Total .29 How are these alike? Overidentification Disproportionality Linked to Academic Progress or Lack Thereof What if Kalisha’s Class is OK but She is Struggling? Core instruction is OK. Grade Level Standard Kalisha Sticks out Like a Sore Thumb Core curriculum working for most but not her #Correct Tier 2 For Kalisha Response to Intervention Before Intervention During Intervention Avg. for his Class Each Dot is one Day of Intervention Intervention Sessions Intervention in Reading #Correct No Response to intervention Before Intervention During Intervention Avg. for his Class Goals of Tier 2 Intervention To reduce the gap To rule out ABT – Can’t be done with Woodcock or any other test. – Testing can’t know she wasn’t taught effectively!!! – The only way to determine if student can learn normally is to teach and look at student’s response Kalisha using RTI via NCLB and IDEA Evidenced based core to prevent failure Universal screening to detect Kalisha when she is slightly behind Evidenced based Supplemental Instruction Intensive Individual Intervention New way: 95% Chance No SPED Needed Old way: 90% Chance SPED Needed Kalisha Needs the Juice: I-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N Challenges Exist Research Base is Lacking in Some Areas New Jobs Require – Existing people learning new Jobs – New RTI Specialists Interventionists Job Integrated Training The big big challenge…Implementation Fidelity Here’s the Friction Currently Team – Develops Gut Feeling About the problem – Then Self Report cycle for teacher How do you know child needs help. How do you know intervention was done How do you know intervention did not work – Ok lets test Because that is ONLY real option – Now Lets place – Nobody has to do much Old way easy and routine. RTI—Lots of Moving Part Daunting Facts Yesseldyke Studies The Big Green Arrow If intervention fidelity is this low – Teacher delivered intervention impossible Changes May be Needed Current Practice – Every child has collaboratively developed individual intervention – Problems Not evidenced based No one is an expert Materials must be assembled New Way – Tiny Number of Evidenced Based Interventions – Materials Readied—Pre-training – Use them when needed Due Process and Fidelity Old Way – We did the intervention now lets place New Way—Results tell us: – Can child learn at normal rate? Rule out ABT – What intensity of services are needed? – Intervention now serves an assessment purpose. Validity data needed. Common Questions How much improvement is “enough” What “counts” as intervention – How long, what intensity What if intervention not used Due Process Requirements – Completely Untested Kalisha OLD WAY Wait to fail Test her using NEW WAY – Block design – Woodcock her Compare to National Norms Place Screen early-help early Compare to local norms Intervene Use intervention response to determine child needs Thank You Contact: [email protected] Web: www.joewitt.org